On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 12:24, Tom Lane wrote: > I would think his point is that the above paragraph specifies behavior > that is very definitely NOT like Postgres'.
Ah, I see now -- yeah, I misunderstood. > > I submitted a patch for 7.4 that adjusts the > > CREATE SEQUENCE grammar to match SQL2003's CREATE SEQUENCE a little more > > closely, > > Did we apply it? I'm inclined not to, until we nail down the semantic > implications a little more. Conforming to the spec on syntax when we > don't on semantics strikes me as a bad idea. I agree, although the patch has already been applied. There's already a need to reform the way in which the next value of a sequence is produced (nextval() makes it difficult to get the dependancy information right); would it be a good idea to change it to be completely SQL compatible at the same time? Cheers, Neil ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
